[_delirium]

I agree the wealthy will generally get to live where they want. I think there can be some variation in where they want to live, though, depending on policies. Some wealthy definitely want to live in urban areas, and others definitely want to live in suburban areas, but for others it may depend: for example, if you build shiny new condo towers with modern amenities, there are people who currently wouldn't consider moving into a dilapidated Mission complex who would consider buying one of those new condos and moving up to the city. So you might bring in some new rich people to SF depending on what gets built. The worry some anti-gentrification people seem to have is that the end result will be that the new demand gets soaked up by new rich people, and the only place demand is lowered is not so much a city-wide basis as a metropolitan-area-wide basis: prices go down in outlying suburbs, which is where the poor people then have to move. That's what seems to be happening in NYC: every time a new neighborhood is gentrified, poor people have to move another 15 minutes further away from work, into yet another further-out area with worse transit.

Some people hope to make the city stay unattractive to rich people, so they prefer to live on the Peninsula or North Bay (or in NYC, maybe some nice condo towers on Jersey's "gold coast"). So you still have the golden ghetto, so to speak, but you try to put it elsewhere. Even leaving aside whether that's a good goal, I think it's certainly a good question whether current policy will actually do that; it's quite possible anti-growth policies won't have that effect anyway (e.g. Paris's anti-growth policy has certainly not resulted in a non-gentrified Paris). The interconnections are pretty interesting though, and seem hard to model, especially with the existing data points (e.g. NYC) having, as you point out, their own oddities.